StemCell Therapy

Debates over the ethics of embryonic stem cell research have divided scientists, politicians, and religious groups for years. However, promising developments in other areas of stem cell research have led to solutions that help bypass these ethical barriers and win more support from those against embryonic stem cell research; the newer methods don't require the destruction of blastocysts.

In 1998, the first published research paper on the topic reported that stem cells could be taken from human embryos. Subsequent research led to the ability to maintain undifferentiated stem cell lines (pluripotent cells) and techniques for differentiating them into cells specific to various tissues and organs.

The debates over the ethics of stem cell research began almost immediately in 1999, despite reports that stem cells cannot grow into complete organisms.

In 20002001, governments worldwide were beginning to draft proposals and guidelines to control stem cell research and the handling of embryonic tissues and reach universal policies. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) drafted a list of recommendations for stem cell research in 2001. In the U.S., the Clinton administration drafted guidelines for stem cell research in 2000. Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and other countries followed suit and formulated their own policies.

Debates over the ethics of studying embryonic stem cells continued for nearly a decade until the use of adult-derived stem cellsknown as induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs)became more prevalent and alleviated those concerns.

In the U.S. since 2011, federal funds can be used to study embryonic stem cells, but such funding cannot be used to destroy an embryo.

The excitement about stem cell research is primarily due to the medical benefits in areas ofregenerative medicineand therapeutic cloning. Stem cells provide huge potential for finding treatments and cures to a vast array of medical issues:

Stem cell research presents problems like any form of research, but most opposition to stem cell research is philosophical and theological, focusing on questions of whether we should be taking science this far:

Use of adult-derived stem cellsknown as induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs)from blood, cord blood, skin, and other tissues has been demonstrated as effective in treating different diseases in animal models. Umbilical cord-derived stem cells obtained from the cord blood also have been isolated and used for various experimental treatments. Another option is uniparental stem cells. Although these cell lines are shorter-lived than embryonic cell lines, uniparental stem cells hold vast potential if enough research money can be directed that way: pro-life advocates do not technically consider them individual living beings.

Two recent developments from stem cell research involve the heart and the blood it pumps. In 2016, researchers in Scotland began working on the possibility of generating red blood cells from stem cells in order to create a large supply of blood for transfusions. A few years earlier, researchers in England began working on polymers derived from bacteria that can be used to repair damaged heart tissue.

See the rest here:
Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - The Balance

This entry was posted on November 16, 2018 at 12:47 am and is filed under Stem Cell Negative. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |